[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Walter E. Williams --- What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Walter E. Williams
Post Date: 2015-03-23 14:35:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 16855
Comments: 96

Walter E. Williams

What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?

The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception.

The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical.

Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you shall live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, we would deem it tyranny.

Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.

The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.

If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.

#10. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited)

Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell.

They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population). Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood.

The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.

The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either.

So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.

What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-23   15:20:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

"They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population)."

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people. They were property. Just sayin' how it was.

Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property. Who in their right mind would allow women, the poor, and the uneducated to vote?

The Founders were wrong? Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-23   18:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#17)

Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property.

Educate yourself,fool.

There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-23   19:25:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: sneakypete (#27)

There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.

And women.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-23   20:58:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: nolu chan (#34)

There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.

And women.

Thanks. I didn't know that.

Do you have any links? I don't doubt your accuracy,but would like to be able to refer others to links when I repeat that and they start demanding proof.

sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-23   21:58:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 36.

#37. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#36) (Edited)

he number of free black slaveholders would start to rise again only after legislation in 1782 allowed emancipation by deed or will. According to Schwarz (1987), legal and political conditions changed dramatically by 1806, making it necessary for many free blacks to hold slaves to assure their own continued residence in Virginia. Anxious over the increasing presence of unenslaved and harder to control blacks, legislators decided that future beneficiaries of emancipation would have to leave the commonwealth within twelve months of their change of status or else be reenslaved and sold for the benefit of the poor whites. This forced the former slaves to acquire new skills for doing business on their own, which obliged some of them to buy a work force in the form of slaves (Schwarz, 1987). After 1832, blacks could acquire no more slaves except spouses, children or those gained by descent. The Code of 1849 added parents to these exceptions, but in 1858, "acting in an atmosphere of sectional crisis and perhaps emboldened by the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement against black citizenship in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the legislature took away what little security free blacks might hope to give to relatives in the future" (Schwarz, 1987, p. 332). Thus black Virginians could no longer buy family members. These changes occurred throughout the United States with some differences by state.

http://www.kon.org/urc/v4/tikhomirova.html

There was an effort after the War of Independence was won to disenfranchise Blacks and Indians. You had blacks and Indians that were free men owning slaves and plantations and then the laws changed and attitudes changed.

Pericles  posted on  2015-03-23 22:04:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: sneakypete (#36)

Do you have any links? I don't doubt your accuracy,but would like to be able to refer others to links when I repeat that and they start demanding proof.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=11#C11

In general, see this thread where "the people" and suffrage were extensively discussed.

As regards a constitutional textbook definition of "the people," see:

The People.When the term the people is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the gov­ernment through being clothed with the elective franchise. Thus, the people elect delegates to a constitutional con­vention, and determine by their votes whether the com­pleted work of the convention shall or shall not be adopted; the people choose the officers under the constitution, and so on. For these and similar purposes the electors, though constituting but a small minority of the whole body of the community, nevertheless act for all, and, as being for the time the representatives of sover­eignty, they are considered and spoken of as the sovereign people. But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected. In this case, therefore, the right to assemble is preserved to all the people, and not merely to the electors, or to any other class or classes of the people.

[Italics in original, boldface and underline added.]

Thomas M Cooley, LL.D.; The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America; Boston; Little Brown, and Company; 1880; pages 267-268.

The Constitution did not guarantee anyone the right to vote. That is up to the states. States constitutionally created statutes restricting who could vote, and they constitutionally restricted women after the Constitution was adopted and after women had already voted. Also, the Constitution affirmatively stated the requirements to be President. It did not prohibit women from running for President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belva_Ann_Lockwood

Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (October 24, 1830 – May 19, 1917) was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author. She was active in working for women's rights. The press of her day referred to her as a "suffragist," someone who believed in women's suffrage or voting rights. Lockwood overcame many social and personal obstacles related to gender restrictions. After college, she became a teacher and principal, working to equalize pay for women in education.[1] She supported the movement for world peace, and was a proponent of temperance.

Lockwood graduated from law school in Washington, D.C. and became one of the first female lawyers in the United States. In 1879, she successfully petitioned Congress to be allowed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first woman attorney given this privilege. Lockwood ran for president in 1884 and 1888 on the ticket of the National Equal Rights Party and was the first woman to appear on official ballots.[2]

http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/98-Lockwood

In 1884 she accepted the nomination of the National Equal Rights Party and ran for president. Although suffrage leaders opposed her candidacy, Lockwood saw it as an entering wedge for women. She polled over 4,000 votes and ran again in 1888.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=43#C43

I started to quote the original constitutions of the states regarding who were citizens.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=46#C46

Documenting the early voting of women in New Jersey. Their vote in NJ was revoked in the 1800's.

For example:

http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/

American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776))

[...]

Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.))

[...]

Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111))

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=78#C78

New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (in effect in 1792 and until 1844)

IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.

Any inhabitant of full age with fifty pounds proclamation money, resident twelve months, had the right to vote per the state constitution. As noted previously, women voted there for over thirty years, including before, during, and after 1792.

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=83#C83

North Carolina Constitution, 1776

The Constitution or Form of Government

[...]

VIII. That all freemen, of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceeding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons for the county in which he resides.

State v Manuel, 4 Devereux and Battle 20, 25 (1838), Gaston, J.

Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.

[...]

The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution."

More state constitutions follow.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-23 23:12:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com